uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Steve Spencer wrote:
I can't imagine that anyone using MF would try to do what Rouse was doing in the AF tests 2 & 3. Instead, you would pick a spot where you would expect the owl to fly to in test 2 or the otter run to in test 3, focus on that spot and try to capture the image as the animal came to that spot. I do think that somebody like Doug (but not me) could get excellent images of these animals using such a technique, but I can also see why most togs would prefer to have AF for this type of shooting. What I think this analysis is missing, however, especially for this sort of wildlife shooting that knowing these animals, how to get close to them, and their habits is a necessary part of the process. Being in the right place and being ready to shoot these animals is really the required skills and that is what Rouse and Doug share and why they can both produce amazing shots. ...Show more →
+1
There's a big difference between bird photography and sports photography.
I shoot action sports often with my M9, usually skiing, and my keeper rate is decent. It's actually fairly easy with practice. But light is important: if it's bright you can go right to f/8 and still freeze skiers: with a very reasonable DOF.
The A7 is a similar story:
Here is A7 with Minolta 200/5, MF obviously:
DSC08156 by unoh7, on Flickr
But when it gets dim, or if you want to see a wing stopped in flight, you need wider apertures and it gets alot tougher.
Here is Herr's MF one time lens of choice, the leica 400/6.8 on the A7
DSC09857 by unoh7,
You have to look hard, and be very used to the lens 
But Wildlife guys do often go to MF in certain situations. AF can fail in dim light or with other distractions, so it's far from reliable all the time.
A Sony A7s might be a formidable MF machine in many action situations, simply because you could shoot with both a fast shutter and f/8 aperture, and still maybe get something not too noisy.
artur5 wrote:
http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpeg/9cb26583f431db8f6a26c36cf369bcc91b015015.jpg
Looking at the optical designs of the Loxia 35 and the ZM35, does anybody really expect a significant difference in the performance of those lenses on Sony A7x cameras ?. They're 98% identical, even the distance from the rear element to the focal plane is the same and the rear blocks are twin brothers.
One thing could be different in a meaningful way.
I read a long interview with the A7 design team, and there was discussion about how the processor could help make the edges better at wide apertures and the whole image more clear at very small apertures. IF the camera recognizes the lens. If not, none of that works.
That was my impression after reading the translation about 10 times 
I'm pretty sure this is why the FE35 is better on the A7r than anything else at 35FL.
So I'd bet the A7x will recognise the Loxia and maybe able to improve things a bit.
TY for interesting post
rishio media wrote:
Luminous Landscape Interviews Richard Schleuning of Zeiss about the new Loxia Lens Line for Sony FE Mount and explains why it works better on the eMount than the ZM line. A good little piece and the guy seems to know what he's talking about
It starts 20 seconds in..
good catch there, too bad we don't get to see the samples. 
I'd love to know what the "tweaks" were
I'm surprised how close to the zm biogon the loxia apparently is.
That said, he is very clear the lens is way better on the A7r, and untill we know otherwise, I give him the benefit of the doubt
|
